Unit 5 - Essays - Internal Migration Flashcards
(7 cards)
‘Distance is the most important factor influencing the type of internal migration.’ With the aid of examples, how far do you agree?
Paragraph 1 – Intra-urban (London):
Short distance (5–20 km) within a city.
Age split: young adults (20–35) move inward for jobs/lifestyle; families (30–50) move outward for space/schools.
Movement influenced by housing prices, air quality, transport links, and gentrification.
Paragraph 2 – Rural to urban (Brazil and UK):
LIC/MIC (Brazil): Long distances (~2,400 km); mostly young adults (15–30), often men.
HIC (UK – Isle of Purbeck to London): ~200 km; younger professionals (18–35).
Driven by lack of jobs, education, and services in rural areas.
Paragraph 3 – Urban to rural (London to Church Stretton):
Medium-long distance (~260 km).
30–55 age group (remote workers, families, retirees).
Influenced by remote work, lifestyle change, affordability, and environmental quality.
Paragraph 4 – Role of life stage and opportunity:
Younger people seek opportunity; older migrants seek quality of life.
Life events (e.g. children, retirement, new jobs) shape the type and direction of internal migration.
Conclusion – Clear Judgement:
Age and life stage are the most influential factors, closely followed by distance and opportunity availability. Migration type reflects both demographic profile and personal circumstances.
‘The main impact of rural-urban movements is to create areas of poor quality housing.’ With the aid of examples, to what extent do you agree with this view?
Paragraph 1 – Agree: Poor-quality housing and slums
In São Paulo, favelas like Heliópolis grow due to influx from rural areas with no housing plan.
Informal settlements lack sanitation, security, and legal tenure.
Paragraph 2 – Other major impacts: Pressure on services
Overcrowded hospitals, schools, and transport networks in São Paulo and London.
Migrants increase pressure on urban waste and water systems.
Paragraph 3 – Economic and social impacts
Increased informal labour and job insecurity.
Rise in crime and inequality in urban margins due to unmet expectations.
Paragraph 4 – Positive contributions
Migrants boost the urban economy and labour supply.
Remittances sent back to rural areas can improve housing and services there.
Conclusion (Judgement)
Poor-quality housing is a major outcome, especially in LICs/MICs, but it is one of several interconnected impacts; the broader urban strain must be equally considered.
‘Urban-rural migration has a greater impact than rural-urban migration on the receiving/destination areas.’ With the aid of examples, how far do you agree with this view?
Paragraph 1 – Urban–rural impact (e.g. Church Stretton)
Rising property prices, strain on healthcare, rural gentrification.
Cultural tensions and traffic from in-migration of wealthy urbanites.
Paragraph 2 – Rural–urban impact (e.g. São Paulo)
Housing crises (favelas), overloaded infrastructure, increased social inequality.
Urban sprawl and environmental degradation.
Paragraph 3 – Variation by development level
HIC rural areas (UK) experience lifestyle and economic shifts.
LIC/MIC urban areas (Brazil) face structural collapse under rural migrant inflows.
Paragraph 4 – Scale and long-term effects
São Paulo receives millions of migrants, significantly altering its urban fabric.
Urban–rural migration impacts are more localised and class-based.
Conclusion (Judgement)
Rural–urban migration has greater and more widespread impact due to scale and infrastructure strain, especially in LICs/MICs.
‘Push factors are more important than pull factors as causes of rural to urban migration.’ With the aid of examples, how far do you agree with this statement?
Paragraph 1 – LIC/MIC (Brazil):
Push: drought, poor soils, lack of jobs/services.
Pull: industry and services in São Paulo; better wages, infrastructure, and networks.
Long distances covered by youth, especially men.
Paragraph 2 – HIC (UK):
Push: seasonal tourism jobs, high house prices, poor public transport in Purbeck.
Pull: London offers jobs in media, finance, education; cultural attractions and transport options.
Paragraph 3 – Differences in scale and informality:
Brazil sees mass migration and informal housing (favelas).
UK has smaller-scale, regulated migration but suffers from housing shortages and high rents.
Paragraph 4 – Life stage and education:
In Brazil, basic survival and job access drive movement.
In UK, higher education, career prospects, and cultural life are bigger motivators.
Conclusion – Clear Judgement:
While both contexts show push and pull dynamics, economic survival is the dominant force in LICs/MICs, while lifestyle and career progression matter more in HICs.
‘Age is the most important factor influencing internal migration.’ With the aid of examples, how far do you agree?
Paragraph 1 – Age as a key driver of internal migration:
Young adults (18–35) dominate rural–urban migration in both HICs and LICs (e.g. Ceará to São Paulo; Isle of Purbeck to London)
Intra-urban migration in London sees young professionals moving inward for work and lifestyle
Families aged 30–50 move outward seeking safer environments and schools.
Paragraph 2 – Other important drivers:
Employment opportunities and wage differentials are powerful pull factors (São Paulo, London)
Push factors like poor infrastructure or housing (rural Brazil, inner London) also heavily influence decisions
Paragraph 3 – Influence of life stage and family needs:
Families often move based on schooling or space (e.g. London to Church Stretton)
Retirees (65+) move for lifestyle changes and tranquillity, not economic reasons
Paragraph 4 – Variation by context:
In LICs, migration is more economically driven; in HICs, age interacts with job access, quality of life, or education.
Policies and infrastructure (e.g. Crossrail in London) also shape movement beyond age
Conclusion – Clear Judgement:
Age is a significant factor because it aligns with key life transitions, but it is not the sole cause. Economic opportunity, infrastructure, and life stage often outweigh age alone, especially in LICs.
With the aid of examples, how far do you agree that it is the number of rural-urban migrants that cause the greatest problem for receiving/destination areas?
Paragraph 1 – Problems caused by high numbers (LICs/MICs):
São Paulo sees daily rural migrants, resulting in favelas, poor sanitation, and illegal settlements
Over 22 million people in São Paulo metro: urban planning cannot keep pace.
Paragraph 2 – Scale isn’t the only issue:
Lack of infrastructure and planning causes service strain, not just numbers (e.g. Lebanon with 1.5M Syrians, São Paulo slums)
Informal housing and unregulated land use intensify problems.
Paragraph 3 – HIC example shows problems at lower scale:
London’s population rise from rural areas and intra-urban migration causes housing shortages, gentrification, and transport pressure
Even fewer migrants can stress systems if planning and policy are poor.
Paragraph 4 – Variation across time and space:
Church Stretton (urban–rural) faces gentrification and service pressure despite low migrant numbers
Rural–urban issues arise from rate of influx, not just absolute numbers.
Conclusion – Clear Judgement:
High numbers do worsen problems, especially in LICs with limited capacity, but underlying urban planning failures and resource limits often matter more than scale alone.
‘Residential segregation is the main impact of intra-urban population movements.’ With the aid of examples, to what extent do you agree with this view?
Paragraph 1 – Evidence of segregation (London case):
Movement from inner boroughs (e.g. Tower Hamlets) to outer boroughs due to rising rents and gentrification causes socioeconomic segregation
Low-income groups pushed out to areas like Barking or Bexley, often lacking services.
Paragraph 2 – Other major impacts:
Pressure on outer suburb services: school oversubscription, healthcare demand, rising house prices
Inner-city renewal leads to displacement, loss of affordable housing.
Paragraph 3 – Environmental and transport impacts:
Urban sprawl increases congestion and pollution in outer boroughs.
Greenbelt pressure due to intensification of suburban development
Paragraph 4 – Social and cultural changes:
Shifts in community identity; long-standing residents replaced by high-income newcomers.
Increased income and ethnic diversity in outer boroughs may also lead to tension.
Conclusion – Clear Judgement:
Residential segregation is one key impact, but not the main one. Service pressure, environmental change, and displacement are often more immediate and widespread consequences.
